Opinion
Argued October 10, 2000.
November 6, 2000.
In an eminent domain proceeding, the County of Orange appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Palella, J.), dated February 2, 1999, which is in favor of the petitioner and against it in the principal sum of $1,351,010, plus an additional allowance of $111,537 pursuant to EDPL 701.
Hall Dickler Kent Friedman Wood, LLP, White Plains, N Y (Samuel S. Yasgur of counsel), for appellant.
Jacobowitz and Gubits, LLP, Walden, N.Y. (J. Benjamin Gailey and Gerald N. Jacobowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, SONDRA MILLER, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of the highest and best use of a property must be based upon evidence of a use which reasonably could or would be made of it in the near future (see, Matter of City of New York [Broadway Cary Corp.], 34 N.Y.2d 535, 536; Yaphank Dev. Co. v. County of Suffolk, 203 A.D.2d 280; Matter of City of New York v. Estate of Levine, 196 A.D.2d 6 54; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Neptune Assocs., 190 A.D.2d 669). A "use which is no more than a speculative or hypothetical arrangement in the mind of the claimant may not be accepted as the basis for an award" (Matter of City of New York [Shorefront High School-Rudnick], 25 N.Y.2d 146, 149; Matter of City of New York [Broadway Cary Corp.], supra, at 536). Applying these principles, the petitioner satisfied its burden of proving that the highest and best use of its property was for a shopping center with so-called "pad sites".
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.